Lacewing
Notice how you haven't learned anything that DOESN'T fit what you already thought. I think the purpose of your conclusions is to fit and support your ideas/agenda. But regardless of that, what have you DONE with what you think you've learned? Is it simply for strengthening your argument?
I had previously believed that discussions about God concepts were natural and openly accepted and invited. I underestimated secular dedication to denial. I hadn’t understood why it was so hostile. Over time and by reading posts, I learned how people had suffered because of corrupted religious views. It should have been obvious sooner. How could the teachings of Christ devolve into the Spanish Inquisition? But it did. So the harm is not only to the purity of the teaching but to innocent people who were physically and emotionally damaged by corruption.
So my contribution is to become a greater part in efforts allowing the young to become normal. For example:
“As to how I would guide someone who is confused about the idea of God, I would suggest that he or she begins identifying what one might called "philosophical friends," - people with whom one could seriously examine our thought about God through listening to each other, reading important and useful books together and trying to think for oneself while familiarizing oneself with the ideas of some of the world's great thinkers. Cultivate openness without gullibility and skepticism without cynicism.” ~ Jacob Needleman
Obviously the idea is impossible for a usual philosophy site dedicated to argument and debate. Arguments would kill it. But it is impossible IRL where the young can share on their questions free from the experts in indoctrination. How can they be encouraged to “ Cultivate openness without gullibility and skepticism without cynicism.”
Are you here to be a martyr? Or are you concocting justification to express your own rage?
Why rage if people attack ideas? It is an unfortunate result of the human condition. I feel sad about it. There is nothing to rage at. It has become the norm.
It just seems to me that if someone truly feels committed to accomplishing something, they find the places and ways to do it for the maximum amount of value... and they keep evolving and expanding to be as broadly effective as possible. They naturally seek the most efficient strategies, with passion for what they want to accomplish, as well as for respect of their energy and the energy of others. It's all precious stuff.
Along with helping to organize philosophy as opposed to debate clubs it is time I introduced my talented great great grandfather to the young as a vehicle to ask the question: what is awe? Why do we feel it and what is the significance of the experience of awe? What do we feel when we look at this painting that has moved so many in Russia and Armenia? Sometimes art has the ability to transmit a quality of meaning not possible through ordinary language. He could do it so I’ve been told I have the responsibility to introduce him. It is something I should do before I kick off.
I think the "little" is acceptable because your greatest reward comes from the "comfortable" routine and script you've established. You don't have to go out and actualize anything. You can stay put, fine-tuning your script and your tricks of discourse as you discover the arguments against it... and you can use the forum as a platform from which to judge others against your script. It's for your pleasure. You're not doing anything else with it. Is this accurate?
The script or the universal skeleton has to be filled in. Granted I have not done enough. I don’t have the guts of a Simone but I do make my efforts to allow the skeleton to acquire flesh and live.
I don't think people hate you, Nick -- but they've been seeing your dance for a very long time -- and there's nothing more significant about it than any other person's dance. So when you start repeating it again, people toy with it because that's the most fun. Does that make sense? Then you claim that they hate you or the ideas... again to make it fit your story. The reality for myself (and I'm guessing others too) is much different than your conclusions.
Again, it isn’t a matter of hating me but of hating ideas. That is why I included that excerpt on Socrates’ execution. It wasn’t personal. His ideas could not be tolerated. It is the way of the world caught up in prestige.
I remember reading when a truly great man of being was approached by one of his students who felt intimidated by him. She told him that she was frightened because he was so special and she felt like nothing. He looked at her for a while and finally said: “It is true that compared to me you are shit. But at the same time I compared to some others am also shit. So you see we are the same.” Once this idea sinks in there is nothing to rage about. We are all different qualities of shit with the potential to become human. Socrates knew it which is why he said “I know nothing.” Good shit.
The question if god is necessary is important. The frightening thing is that it is impossible on a normal philosophy site. The defensive negativity the question spawns makes it impossible to express openness without gullibility and skepticism without cynicism. So we’re stuck with arguing about Trump.
